ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I was actually surprised to read this....and it sounds like some supporters of Obama aren't very thrilled about it. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898&page=1 Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration, a recent lobbyist for investment banking giant Goldman Sachs is in line to serve as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Mark Patterson was a registered lobbyist for Goldman until April 11, 2008, according to public filings. Patterson first began lobbying for Goldman Sachs in 2005, after working as policy director for then-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. According to publicly filed lobbying disclosure records, he worked on issues related to the banking committee, climate change and carbon trading and immigration reform, among others. Patterson's lobbying was first noted by the National Journal magazine. Patterson is one of over a dozen recent lobbyists in line for important posts in the Obama administration, despite a presidential order severely restricting the role of lobbyists in his administration, the magazine reported. (click link for entire article) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I don't approve of this for the simple fact that this guy was working with Goldman Sachs. :doh: How did that company end up? Now add the part that he's a lobbyist, man I want to hear the rationale behind this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Certainly feels like a mistake. It's a PR mistake if nothing else. If he knew he was going to do this (appoint lobbiests) then why on Earth did he write the anti lobby stuff. At least the guy hasn't worked as a lobbiest since April. That's a very, very small something. Regardless, on the surface a bad move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Hey, I thought there was gonna be change and stuff. I thought Obama wasn't a typical politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Hey, I thought there was gonna be change and stuff. I thought Obama wasn't a typical politician. I guess you still havent received your Obama check yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 funny how no one on here is defending this(waiting for Larry and predicto)....I honestly thought I would get ripped apart for posting it. also in the article.. Criticism has also erupted over Obama's choice of William J. Lynn, a government relations executive for defense contracting giant Raytheon, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. The White House waived ethics restrictions that would have barred Lynn from working on issues that could affect Raytheon. According to the Pentagon, Lynn would still need approval from the Pentagon general counsel or Secretary Robert Gates to do so. These questions, said Craig Hollman of Public Citizen, show that there should be a more transparent screening process in the Obama adminstration. "This is a brand new ethics policy, so I think there are kinks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Hey, I thought there was gonna be change and stuff. I thought Obama wasn't a typical politician. Typical politicians break other people's rules...not their own. As long as the Chief of Staff for the Treasury Secretary does not work on matters concerning banking he is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 Patterson is one of over a dozen recent lobbyists in line for important posts in the Obama administration, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Certainly feels like a mistake. It's a PR mistake if nothing else. If he knew he was going to do this (appoint lobbiests) then why on Earth did he write the anti lobby stuff.At least the guy hasn't worked as a lobbiest since April. That's a very, very small something. Regardless, on the surface a bad move. Many are doing that. There was an article talking about how lobbyists are trying to launder their careers by being chief of staffs for Senators and the like for a bit before going to the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 So would this guy need a waiver too? I don't remember Obama saying he'd ban lobbyists, but having rules for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 So our financial regulations and the IRS will be overseen by a guy $30k behind in taxes, assisted by a guy who helped run one of the country's oldest banking institutions out of business -- and there are no other more qualified candidates available than these two? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 So our financial regulations and the IRS will be overseen by a guy $30k behind in taxes, assisted by a guy who helped run one of the country's oldest banking institutions out of business -- and there are no other more qualified candidates available than these two? Really? Sounds like same old govt. I cant believe people believed every word he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 ......the IRS will be overseen by a guy $30k behind in taxes......YupIn 4 years the line will be......."What did you expect from a tax cheat?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumrunner6900 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Cmon now folks. Don't be surprised. I've said it before....meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And when you make it as far as President, there are a lot of political favors to pay back....this is merely the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 This is nothing like the last administration. Those were people who were appointed officials, who turned out to be crooks. Now, he is hiring crooks to be the officials. That is good transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 So would this guy need a waiver too? I don't remember Obama saying he'd ban lobbyists, but having rules for them. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/obama_softens_ban_on_hiring_lobbyists/ WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama, who vowed during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House," said through a spokesman yesterday that he would allow lobbyists on his transition team as long as they work on issues unrelated to their earlier jobs. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/01/22/no-lobbyist-in-the-obama-administration--except-when-there-is-one.html So, President Obama (I do enjoy typing that) is going to ban lobbyists from his administration...except when he isn't? This from today's New York Times: In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 So this is the change we can believe in. :doh: And check out the stimulus package.... loaded to the brim with pork barrel projects that won't create a single job or build a single road but will certainly reward special interest groups for getting this fraud elected. "Change... its about all we'll have left in our pockets in four years". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 This is nothing like the last administration. Those were people who were appointed officials, who turned out to be crooks. Now, he is hiring crooks to be the officials.That is good transparency. :rotflmao: As an Obama supporter this obviously pisses me off and I can't defend it at this point. I'm doing my best to give him some time in office but I can't say this or the bailout has made me exactly thrilled the past few days - although the bailout was expected so kind of hard to be too angry about that. Oh well - hopefully I don't look TOO stupid in 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 This is nothing like the last administration. Those were people who were appointed officials, who turned out to be crooks. Now, he is hiring crooks to be the officials.That is good transparency. Well, to be fair. Obama seems to be hiring competente, experienced crooks. Bush often hired crooks who were inexperienced and failed men/women who didn't even have the resume often to warrant the job. So, while not a big change, it is a slight change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Well, to be fair. Obama seems to be hiring competente, experienced crooks. Bush often hired crooks who were inexperienced and failed men/women who didn't even have the resume often to warrant the job.So, while not a big change, it is a slight change. To be REALLY fair I don't think Bush ever made a big production out of saying he wouldn't hire crooks. Or basically campaign on the premise that "hire me and there will be no more crooks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Well, to be really, really fair... sure he did. He said he was coming to DC to change and end the corruption of the Clinton days. That implied end of crooks and lobby influence which they campaigned against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Well, to be really, really fair... sure he did. He said he was coming to DC to change and end the corruption of the Clinton days. That implied end of crooks and lobby influence which they campaigned against. Alright, to be COMPLETELY fair, he didn't break his very own rules for preventing hiring crooks days within signing them. But why is this about Bush when we have entered a new era of politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Okay, ya got me there. Obama was pretty dumb to put his position in writing and then within the week go back on his word. That's just a little nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Obama writes the rule that he did not have to do. and then broke the same rule a dozen times within a week of becoming President. I just don't understand the idiocy of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'd bet it's a simple case of one hand talking to the next hand. Still, that's no excuse and it is making him look clumsy and hypocritical if not dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.